Abstract

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of the application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in spinal fusion surgery on the fusion rate of the spine. METHODS A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct databases was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) or observational cohort studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of PRP in spinal fusion. Data on final fusion rate, changes in the visual analog scale (VAS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and operative time was collected from the eligible studies for meta-analysis. Patients were divided into PRP and non-PRP groups according to whether PRP was used during the spinal fusion procedure. RESULTS According to the selection criteria, 4 randomized controlled trials and 8 cohort studies with 833 patients and 918 levels were included. The outcomes indicated that PRP application is associated with a lower fusion rat (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: (0.43, 0.89), P = 0.009) at final follow-up (>24 months). Subgroup analysis showed a lower rate of spinal fusion in the PRP group compared to the non-PRP group (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: (0.21, 0.58), P < 0.001) when spinal fusion was assessed using only anterior-posterior radiographs. When the bone graft material was a combination of autologous bone + artificial bone, the spinal fusion rate was lower in the PRP group than in the non-PRP group (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: (0.16, 0.71), P = 0.004). The PRP and non-PRP groups showed no significant differences in VAS changes at the 24th postoperative month (WMD = 0.36, 95% CI: (-0.37, 1.09), P = 0.33); Application of PRP does not reduce the estimated blood loss (WMD = -86.03, 95% CI: (-188.23, 16.17), P = 0.10). In terms of operation time, using PRP does not prolong operation time (WMD = -3.74, 95% CI: (-20.53, 13.04), P = 0.66). CONCLUSION Compared with bone graft fusion alone, PRP cannot increase the rate of spinal fusion. Inappropriate methods of spinal fusion assessment or mixing PRP with artificial/allograft bone may have been responsible for the lower rate of spinal fusion in the PRP group. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION doi: 10.37766/inplasy2022.5.0055.

Abstract

PURPOSE Recent clinical data suggest that terlipressin, a vasopressin analogue, may be more beneficial in septic shock patients than catecholamines. However, terlipressin's effect on mortality is unknown. We set out to ascertain the efficacy and safety of continuous terlipressin infusion compared with norepinephrine (NE) in patients with septic shock. METHODS In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, patients with septic shock recruited from 21 intensive care units in 11 provinces of China were randomised (1:1) to receive either terlipressin (20-160 microg/h with maximum infusion rate of 4 mg/day) or NE (4-30 microg/min) before open-label vasopressors. The primary endpoint was mortality 28 days after the start of infusion. Primary efficacy endpoint analysis and safety analysis were performed on the data from a modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS Between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2016, 617 patients were randomised (312 to the terlipressin group, 305 to the NE group). The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 526 (85.3%) patients (260 in the terlipressin group and 266 in the NE group). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality rate between the terlipressin group (40%) and the NE group (38%) (odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]; p = 0.80). Change in SOFA score on day 7 was similar between the two groups: - 7 (IQR - 11 to 3) in the terlipressin group and - 6 (IQR - 10 to 5) in the NE group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of days alive and free of vasopressors. Overall, serious adverse events were more common in the terlipressin group than in the NE group (30% vs 12%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, we observed no difference in mortality between terlipressin and NE infusion in patients with septic shock. Patients in the terlipressin group had a higher number of serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ID NCT01697410.